Chair of Israel coalition government opposes Palestinian state

 (June 14) Likud MP Miki Zohar, chair of the Israeli coalition, says he is opposed to the Palestinians having a state. He claimed that as long as he chaired the coalition government he would not permit the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Zohar favors annexation of the occupied West Bank

Zohar says that Israel must declare sovereignty over the West Bank territories it occupies through annexation. The Holy Land he claims "is ours alone". The annexation would cut deep into territory claimed by the Palestinians. Under International law the West Bank is considered occupied territory but the Israelis consider it disputed territory and claim the laws of occupation do not apply. Israel has built Israeli settlements in the territory violating occupation laws.

Zohar said to the Hamevaser newspaper: "I am in favor of applying sovereignty to all Jewish communities in all parts of the Land of Israel. This is a historic opportunity that it is not certain we will have in the future - to apply sovereignty to at least 30 percent of Judea and Samaria. We should not be afraid to acknowledge the fact that this is our holy land and ours alone. On the other hand, I strongly oppose the principle of a Palestinian state. I will not allow any situation in which the government or Knesset commits itself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. As long as I am the chairman of the coalition, I will ensure these matters, as these are ideological and principled matters on which I will not compromise." Zahar admitted that there were will issues to be resolved, including roads, enclaves and more but that these issues were capable of resolution but he would in no way agree to the Palestinians having a state.

Annexation is supported by the US Trump administration

Back in late April Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made it clear that annexation was a matter for Israel to decide: "As for the annexation of the West Bank, the Israelis will ultimately make those decisions. That's an Israeli decision. And we will work closely with them to share with them our views of this in [a] private setting."

An anonymous US State Dept. spokesperson said in late April: "As we have made consistently clear, we are prepared to recognise Israeli actions to extend Israeli sovereignty and the application of Israeli law to areas of the West Bank that the vision foresees as being part of the State of Israel." The annexation would accompany an agreement by Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians along the lines of "President Trump's Vision" she said. However, the Palestinian's have already rejected Trump's plan that did not involve any negotiations or even consultations with Palestinians. A BBC article at the end of January described the Palestinian reaction: "Palestinians have dismissed US President Donald Trump's new Middle East peace plan as a "conspiracy". It envisages a Palestinian state and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the occupied West Bank."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump wants to cut troop levels in both Japan and South Korea

 (June 13) Richard Grennel the outgoing US Ambassador to Gemrany said that the 9,500 troop withdrawal from Germany was in keeping with Trump's position and that he also wants to withdrawn troops from Japan and South Korea.

Trump wants more money to pay for troops

Grennel noted that the withdrawal simply sends the signal that Trump thinks that US deployments are too costly and those countries where US troops are stationed need to pay more of the costs of supporting the troops that are there. The withdrawal from Germany was about 30 percent of the over 34,000 troops stationed in the country.

Grenell was quoted as saying: "This is a hotly contested issue in the United States. Donald Trump was very clear, we want to bring troops from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, from South Korea, Japan, from Germany. It doesn't feel like something that gives too powerful a message, other than Americans ... are getting a little tired of paying too much for the defense of other countries. And this has been a very political point that President Trump has made for a long time."

Polls show that the German populace would rather see US troops withdraw than face increased expenditures for their upkeep. Trump may end up still having to pay for the upkeep of the troops he withdraws without any extra funds whatsoever if the withdrawn troops return to the US.

US trying to get even more money from South Korea

The talk of US troop withdrawal comes as the US is also putting pressure on South Korea to increase its financial contributions to pay for the 28,500 strong force there under the bilateral cost sharing deal called the Special Measure Agreement. There have been months of failed negotiations.

South Korea offered considerably more to the US and already pays more than many countries but the offer did not come close to Trump's unprecedented demands. The Koreans are unlikely to give in to Trump's demands. Japan is also unlikely to accept Trump's massive new demands.

The enclosed video notes that Trump is asking for more money to sustain troops stationed in foreign countries.

Palestine Authority says it will declare state of Palestine if Israel goes ahead with annexation

(June 10) Palestinian Authority officials claim that Palestinians will declare the Israel-occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip as an independent state if the Israeli's forge ahead with their planned annexation of the West Bank.

	1 of 3

Israeli government planned annexation supported by the US

The Netanyahu government intends to annex portions of the West Bank a move that is part of US President Trump's peace plan. Although the plan offered some minor concessions to the Palestinians to compensate for the annexation the entire plan was rejected by the Palestinians The plan was drafted under the stewardship of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. Palestinian authorities were not involved in negotiations or even consulted. A BBC article reported: "Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Trump administration had simply "copied and pasted" the steps that Mr Netanyahu wanted to see implemented."It's about annexation, it's about apartheid," he said. "Moving to the de jure annexation of settlements is something that was given the green light yesterday.""

Despite the Palestinian rejection of the US peace plan, the US has encouraged Israel to go ahead with annexation with the Palestinians to receive nothing in return.

The Palestinian counter-proposal

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been suggesting alternative plans that have been sent both to the US and the Mideast Quartet of the UK, EU, France, and the US.

The Palestinian plan would create a demilitarized by sovereign state as part of the agreement. There has been no reaction so far from Israel. Israel generally oppose Palestinian statehood and the US generally goes along with Israel's positions.

A demilitarized state adjacent to Israel is probably not best for any Palestinian state given the size of the Israeli military and its propensity to invade Palestinian areas. However, the Palestinians would be unlikely to have sufficient forces to defend their state against Israel in any event. It is no doubt seen as preferable to permanent annexation and perhaps as less threatening to the Israelis.

Statement of the Palestinian Prime Minister

Mohammad Shtayyeh the Palestinian Prime Minister said: “We’re waiting and pushing for Israel not to annex. If Israel is going to annex after July 1st, we are going to go from the interim period of the Palestinian Authority into the manifestation of a state on the ground. What does a manifestation of the state on the ground mean? It means that there will be a foundational council. There will be a constitutional declaration. And Palestine will be on the borders of [19]67, with Jerusalem as its capital. And we will call on the international community to recognise this land. That is where we are.” It seems unlikely that many countries will recognize the Palestinian state and certainly Israel will not. The declaration will be mostly symbolic.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump and Pentagon disagree on deployment of active duty troops to control protests

 (June 8)Tensions are very high between the Pentagon and the White House over Trump's threat to use active military forces to control protests after George Floyd was killed by a policeman.

The tensions

Historically, there have often been tensions between the government and the Pentagon but during Trump's term this is the second time eh tensions have been so high as to raise the prospect of high-level resignations and lasting damage to the military's reputation.

Trump has recommended dominating the streets and the use of force to control demonstrations and has even suggested that not just the National Guard be used to quell protests but also active-duty service people. He has suggested invoking the Insurrection Act that would allow him to use active-duty troops which otherwise would be illegal. However, many critics see such a move as harming the reputation of the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said to reporters: "I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act".

Trump seems to feel there is no limit on his authority to use unlimited power to dominate the streets during protests including the use of active US forces against US citizens rather than against foreign enemies. Critics see such use of active-duty troops against US citizens as justified only in extreme conditions such as an actual rebellion. Trump had requested Defense Secretary Esper to send 10,000 US troops to Washington DC to potentially be used to quell protests. Esper put pressure on several state governors to send National Guard members to Washington to head off any Trump attempt to demand that active-duty forces be used.

Other military officials critical of Trump's position

Vincent K. Brooks a recently retired four-star Army general claimed that Trump's threat to use federal troops for law enforcement in any states where he deemed a governor was not acting toughly enough towards protesters and wrote in an essay for Harvard University's Beifer Center where he is a fellow: “It is a trust that the military, especially the active-duty military — ‘the regulars’ — possessing great physical power and holding many levers that could end freedom in our society and could shut down our government, would never, never apply that power for domestic political purposes.”

Former Defense Minister Jim Matthis criticized Trump's use of force to clear peaceful demonstrators so that Trump could walk to a church for a photo op. Matthis said that he never dreamed troops “would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.” In a further statement published in the Atlantic Matthis went on criticizing the president: “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people —does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.” Matthis called on Americans to unite without Trump.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Russia deploys more troops and equipment to Baltic Area

(June 7) Russia's Western Military District has announced that it will deploy more troops along with motorized units into the western region as the US and NATO troops are deployed in the Baltic and other areas that border Russia.

Troops said to be deployed to defend Russia
The movement of Russian troops places more Russian forces near where NATO has stationed troops and carried out operations. The announcement said the deployed troops are meant to “perform tasks on ensuring the defense of the Russian Federation in the Western Strategic direction.” With the Russian buildup the way is being paved for more tit-for-tat challenges and further buildups on both sides.

Russia complained about US and NATO activity

The Russian deployment came just days after Colonel General Sergei Rudskoj of the Russian General Staff had complained about "anti-Russian' operations carried out by the US and NATO members adjacent to Russia's borders. The largest deployment of US troops in a quarter century had been scaled down because of concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic but the US still was able to step up its presence through other maneuvers.
However, the timing is a bit odd as the US is removing 9,500 troops from Germany who are allegedly designed to confront Russia although Germany is not right at the Russian border. Perhaps the two sides will be able to reach some kind of balance and avoid a continual buildup. Neither side presumably seeks a Russian US NATO war as a result of the mutual buildups.

Statement by US Navy official

Navy Vice Admiral Lisa Frachetti said in a press conference: "In these challenging times, it is more important than ever that we maintain our steady drumbeat of operations across the European theater while taking prudent measures to protect the health of our force. We remain committed to promoting regional security and stability, while building trust and reinforcing a foundation of Arctic readiness."
The exercises by NATO and the US include aerial activity over Sweden and Norway in northern Europe but also over the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Far East as well as over the Ukraine where the Russians are supporting an insurgency in the east. There are even joint operations with the UK in Antarctica in the Barents sea where the two countries are holding missile defense drills.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump orders 9,500 US troops out of Germany

(June 5) Relations between the US and Germany have reached such a low level that the Trump Administration has announced that 9,500 troops will be returning from Germany to the US.

Trump has constantly complained about Germany not sharing expenses

Trump has complained for years that the Germans do not pay a fair share of the expenses of keeping US troops there. He has maintained the same position with other countries as well, such as South Korea. In Germany, the withdrawal will still leave 25,000 troops in the country. No doubt, this will be a new cap for US troop presence in the country. Under present policy up to 52,000 US troops can be in Germany at any one time.

The US has used the threat to pull out troops as a lever to demand Germany increase its share of their costs. However, polls have shown that Germans would prefer they leave rather than pay more. There appears to be no political backlash against Germany's refusal to pay more for US troops.

In the past, the US has had many more troops in Germany as part of Cold War deals. The US troops are still nominally there to fend off any threat from the Russians, but there appears no big threat from Russia. Indeed the US is now bothered by increased trade relations with Russia as evidenced in the Nordstrom 2 project a pipeline from Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany.

US Ambassador to Germany issued threats

On May 25 of 2020 then US ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell blasted Andreas Nick, the head of the German Delegation to Parliamentary Assembly who complained that Grenell had been issuing threats over Germany's low funding of NATO spending tweeting: “You always wanted me to stop asking you publicly to pay your NATO obligations and calling for an end to Nord Stream 2. But these are US policies. And I work for the American people.” Grenell also said: “Instead of undermining the solidarity that forms the basis of NATO’s nuclear deterrence, it is now time for Germany to meet its commitments to its allies and to continuously invest in NATO’s nuclear participation.” Also, in May Grenell had accused Germany of undermining NATO's nuclear deterrent when German legislators had called for the removal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.

Nick responded to Grenell by noting that previous US ambassadors he had known had always left as highly respected figures and as trusted friends of Germany but that Grenell was leaving while issuing threats and acting as if the US were a power hostile to Germany.

As indicated on the appended video Grenell has resigned. The Trump administration seems to use its power to try and bully other countries into doing its bidding. The result when used against allies is often to alienate them and at times increase the influence of countries that the US considers enemies.

Trumps softens his position agrees that active military troops not needed to control protests

(June 4) US Defense Secretary Mark Esper opposed President Donald Trump's idea of invoking the Insurrection Act so as to deploy active-duty US troops in US cities to quell protests against the murder of George Floyd by a police officer.

Esper ordered troops away from Washington but then reversed himself

Esper ordered 200 active-duty troops from the 82nd Airborne immediate response force, which had been brought to the national capital to deal with unrest if needed, to return to their base after two days of relatively peaceful demonstrations. However, after just a couple of hours he reversed his decision after a meeting at the White House and after internal Pentagon discussions.

No doubt the Trump administration wanted to make sure that Esper did not by direct action contradict the president's position.

Esper had said on Wednesday: "The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire situations. We are not in one of those situations right now.I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act."

Even many Republican lawmakers agree with Esper

While a few hawkish senators do support Trump's position, many Congress members both in the House and Senate agree with Esper that active armed forces should be used to control protests only as a last resort. Several retired military officials criticized Trump's position as reported by the New York Times.

In spite of Esper's critical remarks White House officials have said that there are no plans to fire Esper at present.

Trump softens his own position

Trump on Wednesday did not immediately counter his critics' objections but moved to modify his own stance, saying to White House Secretary Sean Spicer: "It depends. I don’t think we’ll have to. We have very strong powers to do it. The National Guard is customary, and we have a very powerful National Guard...As far as going beyond that? Sure, if it was necessary. We have antifa. We have anarchists. We have terrorists, looters. We have a lot of bad people in those groups."

For once, Trump may have compromised on an issue rather than exacerbating disagreements by adding rhetorical fuel to the fire.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump administration to sell $500 million in weapons to Saudi Arabia

(June 1 )The Trump Administration has notified the US Congress confirming plans to sell $500 million in weapons to Saudi Arabia in an upcoming round of arms sales.

Plan includes the sale of Paveway bombs

The sales to the Saudis would include Paveway laser-guided bombs. Raytheon would also receive licenses to manufacture such bombs within Saudi Arabia itself. The Paveway bombs are part of a 2019 deal that saw the Saudis intend to buy 60,000 precision munitions.

The new deal would see the Saudis buy 7,500 of Paveway IV precision-guided missiles that are manufactured by Raytheon Technologies Corp. This would be in addition to the 60,000 that were bought in the 2019 deal. The US government is also committed to Raytheon manufacturing an additional $106 million in weapons within Saudi Arabia with details to be determined.

Deal faces resistance in the US Congress

Many US critics of the sales argue that the Saudis have been committing war crimes using US-supplied munitions in their air war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

US concerns were also exacerbated when the Saudis assassinated journalist Jamal Khashoggi giving rise to a considerable negative political backlash. So far the Trump administration has gone ahead with sales in spite of all Congressional critics.

Middle East weapons sales pushed by US presidents

For years US presidents have made large arms sales to Middle East countries especially those who are well off such as the Saudis a high priority in spite of many critics pointing out serious human rights issues with the sales. Such sales also exacerbate instability in the region.

The May 2019 deal

In May of last year the Trump administration declared an emergency that Mike Pompeo the US Secretary of State claimed involved threats from Iran. This declaration enabled the Trump administration to bypass US Congress notification procedures applicable to arms sales and sell more than $8.1 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The move elicited protests from Democrats and even a few Republicans but failed to prevent the weapon sales.

Previously published in the DIgital Journal

Pentagon refers questiions about arm sales to Saudia Arabia to the US State Department

(May 22)Thursday, the Pentagon referred questions about US arms deals with Saudi Arabia to the State Dept The referral comes amid controversy over an internal watchdog who was fired while reportedly investigating Pompeo's actions in fast-tracking the sales.

Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman told reporters: “I’m not going to talk about the interagency process on that and there’s obviously a lot of scrutiny and interest in this. I would refer you over to State Department, who handled the announcement on this.Foreign military sales are an important part of what the department does and how we work with our allies and partners with regard to that particular transaction I’m just gonna have to refer you over to the State Department I’m not going to discuss the interagency conversations.” On Thursday night a US State Dept. spokesperson wrote that the Department met the requirements of the law and also followed relevant practices in invoking emergency authority that moved the arms transfers forward.

 

  The firing of US State Dept Inspector General 

 

The firing of the State Dept. Inspector General Steve Linick is just one of five recently fired by Trump. As a recent article notes: "In a span of six weeks, Mr. Trump has removed five officials from posts leading their respective agencies' inspector general offices, three of whom were working in an acting capacity. The president's moves have prompted scrutiny and criticism from congressional Democrats, who accuse Mr. Trump of hollowing independent inspector general offices and retaliating against those that have exposed wrongdoing or missteps by his administration." Linick was investigating the role of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo played in the potential fast-tracking of an $8 billion sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, Linck was also checking on other issues such as whether Pompeo and his wife had a State Dept. staff member walk their dog, pick up dry cleaning and perform other personal work. 

 

  

Pompeo denies that the firing had anything to do with the investigation 

Pompeo had urged Trump to fire Linick last week and Trump quickly did so. Pompeo said he should have asked for his dismissal sooner but did not elaborate as to why. The appended video shows Pompeo defending his actions but does not give details about the reasons for his firing. Pompeo claimed: “There are claims that this was for retaliation for some investigation that the inspector general’s office here was engaged in. Patently false,” 

 

 US makes large arms sales to the Saudis 

 

 The Saudis are the number one buyer of weapons from the US and the largest importer of arms in the world. Between 2015 to 2019 the Saudis imported 73 percent of their arms from the US according to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Last March Trump praised the Saudis arms purchases from the US as he met with Crown Prince Mohammed and urged him to buy even more. Trump said at the time: “Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, and they’re going to give the United States some of that wealth, hopefully, in the form of jobs, in the form of the purchase of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world." Critics of the sales point to the poor human rights record of the Saudis including their murder of the journalist Khashoggi as well as the US of the weapons in the war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The US Congress talked of placing some restrictions on exports to the Saudis in 2019 but deliveries continued throughout the year.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

GNA Libyan government forces take air base from warlord Haftar's Forces

(May 19)The internationally-recognized Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) has captured the al-Wattiya airbase from Khalifa Haftar's forces the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA)

A major loss for Haftar 

  The base is huge and was key in launching LNA attacks on adjacent areas. It is one of the last key holdings the LNA had in the area as the GNA forces had dislodged the LNA from many towns along the coast west of Tripoli. Although there is still fighting in the area images show that the GNA controls the base itself. Although there are still LNA troops within shelling distance of Tripoli many of the LNA supply lines are now cut. Eventually the LNA area of control could be reduced to the east of the country if GNA successes continue. Although some backers of Haftar such as the UAE increased supplies they have so far not turned the tide against the GNA which is being helped by Turkey whose drone have been very effective in destroying LNA equipment including air defense systems sent from Russia. The al-Wattiya base had been under siege by GNA forces for about a week. Fayez al-Sarraj the head of the GNA said in a statement: "We proudly announce the liberation of Al-Watiya base," 140 kilometres (90 miles) southwest of Tripoli..Today's success is not the end of the battle but it brings us closer than ever to victory when all cities and regions will be liberated and the tyrannical bid threatening democracy (is) crushed."  

The attack Prior to the attack GNA forces had pounded the base from the air using drones provided by Turkey. They also bombarded the nearby town of Tarhuna. Analyst Hamish Kinnear said: "Once again, the GNA's advances were enabled by extensive Turkish military support." The drones were said to be supplied via the UAE. The GNA commander Mohamad Gammoudi claimed that the final attack on the base was launched at dawn on Monday with air support. The base was surrounded on three fronts. Gammoudi said his forces met little resistance except from a few armored vehicles which tried to slow his advance to allow Haftar forces to safely retreat. The base had been occupied by the LNA since 2014. Military forces claim that all Haftar's aircraft have now been destroyed in the battle fro Tripoli. This will place his troops at a distinct disadvantage as fighting continues.

Rival claimants to Afghanistan presidency make a deal

(May 18)After months of dispute over the presidential election in Afghanistan, with both Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah claiming the presidency, the two competitors have agreed to a power-sharing deal last Sunday.

While Ghani had been declared the winner by a narrow margin Abdullah Abdullah contested the results. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had tried to mediate a compromise but had failed. No doubt to show its displeasure the US cut one billion from US aid to Afghanistan. Perhaps the agreement will help avoid any further cuts to US aid to Afghanistan.

On Sunday Sedig Sediggi, Ghani's spokesperson said:"The Political Agreement between President Ghani and Dr Abdullah Abdullah has just been signed."

The deal

Ironically the deal is almost the same as one first proposed by Ghani months ago. Ghani will remain president under the deal, but Abdullah will become vice president. Abdullah will also be in charge of intra-Afghan peace talks with the Taliban. His supporters will also obtain some cabinet positions. In a previous election there was the same disputed results but at that time the US was able to mediate a compromise with the creation of a Chief Executive Officer position for Abdullah while Ghani remained president.

Talks between Afghan government and Taliban should resume

At the end of February the Taliban and US signed a peace agreement. The US has already begun withdrawing troops as part of the agreement. However, as a confidence-building measure the agreement terms included a prisoner swap of 5,000 Taliban imprisoned by the Afghan government in return for 1,000 imprisoned by the Taliban. The Afghan government refused to carry out the swap because it was not part of the agreement. Attempts to resolve the issue through talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government have so far failed. Because of this the Taliban resumed attacks on the government claiming that the deal had been broken.

Now that there is a more secure Afghan government future talks could be more successful. A recent article notes:"US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said on Friday that a new date for intra-Afghan peace talks was under discussion and he would soon travel to the region and try to encourage a reduction in violence.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iran cautions US against making any moves on fuel shipments to Venezuela

(May 17) Iran's news agency Nour has issued an announcement cautioning the US from making any moves against fuel shipments that are en route from Iran to Venezuela.

US moving warships to the Caribbean

The US move is regarded as threatening by President Maduro of Venezuela whose government the US has been trying to oust. The US has recognized their choice for the coup Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president after he declared himself to be such. Many countries have also followed in the US path.

Nour news said that the US was acting "just like pirates" and would face repercussions if it moved against the ships bound for Venezuela. Nour is said to be close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) and the statements could be a sign of IRG policy.

Nour is quoted as saying: “If the United States, just like pirates, intends to create insecurity on international waterways, it would be taking a dangerous risk and that will certainly not go without repercussion."

US announcement

US officials had issued what they termed an advisory against Iran-flagged tankers, accusing them of deceptive practices to get shipments sent in violation of US sanctions they also condemned Syria and North Korea in the advisory. However none of these countries are bound to follow US sanctions. Only US based ships or US-owned vessels at most would be bound. US sanctions are simply a form of US bullying made possible by its global power.

US may want to raise uncertainty about its actions. Actually, attacking or boarding the vessel physically would very much escalate tensions between the US and Iran. There is no legitimate reason to stop Venezuela from selling oil wherever it wants. The US does not want it to sell oil anywhere.

At least one tanker has set sail with gasoline from Iran has set out for Venezuela. Ali Rabiei an Iranian government spokesperson said to state media: “Venezuela and Iran are both independent states that have had and will continue to have trade relations with each other. We sell goods and buy goods in return. This trade has nothing to do with anyone else. We have to sell our oil and we have ways to do it."

According to time five tankers are now on their way from Iran to Venezuela: "Five Iranian tankers likely carrying at least $45.5 million worth of gasoline and similar products are now sailing to Venezuela, part of a wider deal between the two U.S.-sanctioned nations amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington."

Previously published in the Digital Journal